A public service journey in a new media landscape

(1)

SU

BTI

TL

E

In sea rch of ne w wa ys for a pub lic ser

(2)

Graduate School of Humanities

MA Television and Cross-media Culture 2017-2018

Title: A (public service) journey in the new media landscape

Subtitle: In search of a new way for a public service media travel title to serve citizens

Name: Carmen Esselink Date: 28 June 2018 UvA ID: 11388358 Word Count: 22.974 Ina Boudier-Bakkerlaan 215 3582 ZR, Utrecht +31614939942 c.c.esselink@gmail.com

Supervisor: dr. Joke C. Hermes Second reader: dr. Sudeep M. Dasgupta

(3)

(4)

Abstract

The media landscape is changing irreversibly away from single media platforms. Accordingly, public service broadcasters (PSB) too have to transition from primary platform strategies to thinking in terms of public service media (PSM). For all their content serious cross-media strategies are required to accompany this transition. This thesis is a case study of a PSM format that faces this challenge today. BNNVARA’s 3 op Reis (2007) wants to change its online presence from a travel television show to a title to carry its cross-media strategies. In order to critically reflect on and advise BNNVARA’s current strategy and to offer theoretical insights on the future of public service broadcasting, this thesis will inquire into the following question: How does the practical exercise of studying cross-media strategies for 3 op Reis help theoretical reflection on the transformation from a public service television program to a public service media title? First, I discuss the changes in the media landscape and within the travel genre to set the theoretical framework for this research project. Then, using mixed methods, I analyse the current situation of the website and the program and I analyse how audience members relate to the new cross-media strategies for 3 op Reis. The insights gained from these analyses lead me to conclude that there should be a redefinition of television as multi-platform television and a reformulation of the public service task in terms of bonding and community building in which being meaningful for users is key. Keywords: public service media, multi-platform television, cross-media strategies, travel storytelling, neoliberal capitalism, cultural citizenship and the public service task.

(5)

Preface

Before you lies the dissertation “A (public service) journey in the new media landscape”. It has been written to fulfil the graduation requirements of the Master’s programme Television and Cross-Media Culture at the University of Amsterdam. This dissertation explores how the Dutch public service broadcaster BNNVARA needs to transform into a public service media brand and to redefine its task in order to survive the dynamic new media landscape. To indicate this need, I have used on of their most powerful titles, 3 op Reis, as an example.

In addition, I have chosen 3 op Reis as a subject because it serves a personal as well as a professional interest. For starters, I am truly passionate about both audio-visual and textual travel storytelling and interested in new developments in storytelling this area, such as the travel vlog. Since I have worked for BNNVARA, the research project also serves a professional (and theoretical) interest, because it matters to me that the public service broadcaster will continue to exist in the future.

The research project was undertaken at BNNVARA, where I undertook an internship. The research was tough, but very interesting. Fortunately, there were many people who have made it easier for me. One of them is dr. Joke Hermes. My thanks goes to her for her supervision. She gave me the confidence and feedback that I needed to finish this research project. I would also like to thank the respondents, who remain anonymous, for their cooperation. Moreover, I wish to thank Aislinn, Ayla and Pauline for editing this dissertation. Last but not least, I cannot thank my family and friends enough for their support. If I ever had a hard time, you kept me motivated and gave me perseverance.

Carmen Esselink Utrecht, June 28, 2018

(6)

Attachment 1: Organogram Dutch broadcasting model 2015 68 Attachment 2: Interviews 69 Interview 1: Meriam 69 Interview 2: Nelly 95 Interview 3: Kathelijn 116 Interview 4: Jan 138 Interview 5: Antonio 162 Interview 6: Merel 177 Interview 7: Meike 200 Interview 8: Lizzy 221 Interview 9: Jasper 236 Interview 10: Nienke 249 Interview 11: Yenn 272

(8)

Introduction

The fact that the television landscape is changing is no longer news. The internet, the mobile behaviour of people, (second-screen) apps, and the ‘like’ play a major role in these changes. When the internet just emerged it was thought that that would mean the end of television (Sandvig, 2015). This shows that change often inspires fear of how and if things will survive in the future. However, quite the opposite has proven to be the case. The internet, which is “centrally organized around serving media”, has become television’s wingman (ibid.: 237). The differences between television and internet are consequently becoming less and less clear (Sandvig, 2015). Because communication processes have spread across an array of media, the influences of media can no longer be explained by focusing solely one just one medium, its content, and its possible effects (Hepp, Breiter & Hasebrink, 2018). This argument implies that audiences have been changed by media and have become used to being surrounded by a multiplicity of media at all times. A new way of thinking about television, and media in general, has to be developed which takes the cross-media character of institutional communication, such as public service broadcasting, into account. Nicholas Negroponte asserts that the “key to the future of television is to stop thinking of television as television” (1995: 48). People should not think of television as the box that was invented half a century ago, since television can no longer be seen as a stand-alone medium (Given, 1998). This means that a lot has changed for broadcasters as well.

How should we define this new form of television which also includes the new screens, sites, and platforms on which television content can be accessed on? And how does this ultimately ask for a redefinition of broadcasting and of the public service media task? Even though the changes within the television landscape have been going on for quite a while and are widely discussed, it still appears to be difficult for both theorists and (public service) broadcasters to define what television exactly is and how they should deal with what we used to call television. There is no consistency for what to call television in this ‘new era’ of broadcasting and for the strategies1_{and approaches that broadcasters}

1 I am talking in terms of strategies instead of tactics, because strategies are about long-term success and changes – building an infrastructure to which people have to get used and which will need to feel as a firm, fast built environment – and tactics are the movements through these structures which will help building the infrastructure. Michel de Certeau also distinguishes tactics from strategies. He asserts that “what distinguishes them at the same time concerns the types of operations and the role of spaces: strategies are able to produce, tabulate, and impose these spaces, when those operations take place, whereas tactics can only use, manipulate, and divert these

(9)

are supposed to put to use today. This ambiguity endangers the position of public service broadcasters, as their legitimacy mostly depends on traditional ideas on broadcasting and television. Both theorists and traditional broadcasters are not entirely sure what to make of this changing media landscape. Note here that I have deliberately replaced the word television with media, since that already indicates how and where I see the future for what we used to call broadcasting organisations.

I analyse the changes and challenges ‘broadcasters’ are facing today in this research project, by taking BNNVARA’s 3 op Reis as a case study. I have chosen 3 op Reis as the case study, since it is one of BNNVARA’s most prominent titles.2_{For over ten years now, several presenters and crew members have been} travelling around the world in order to provide content for the title. Whereas television viewing still scores well, the number of web visitors have been disappointing in the last year. These ratings affect the future of 3 op Reis, since the Dutch public service broadcasting system is centred on ratings in order to measure the ‘success’ of titles. Since I often tend to look at travel storytelling across different types of media, exploring this brand not only serves a theoretical but also a personal interest. The title offers their content on television, but also on their website www.3opreis.nl and on various social media.

Changing the way broadcasters think about ‘broadcasting’

Because the sites on which television content can be accessed have multiplied and broadcasting has changed in such an irreversible way from what Elisabeta Andreea Budacia refers to as “the days of single-channel public broadcasting” (2008: 55), it feels strange to refer to public service broadcasters as broadcasters. ‘Broadcasters’ should stop thinking that they make content that is transmitted to an audience that will then obediently and passively watch. Its audience no longer sits in front of the television box as ‘couch potatoes’ (if it ever did). Since television viewing is no longer limited to the box, broadcasting is neither. Television broadcasters should no longer think in terms of linear communication or transmission models but in terms of cross-media communications.

spaces” (1984: 29-30).

2 Whereas BNNVARA is responsible for many types of content (amongst which content for radio, television, social media, and different websites), 3 op Reis is one of their most long-running titles. As a result, it is also plausible that the travel title took less part in new developments – such as the multiplication of media – than titles that were more recently devised.

(10)

New rituals of use as (Lotz, 2007: 1-2) as well as new practices of producing television are required because of the multiplication of sites where one can watch ‘television’. Multi-platform television, as Mareike Jenner identifies the multiplication of screens, enables a more individualised viewing practice and the self-scheduling of television (2016: 267). Amanda Lotz suggests for that reason that we are now in a post-network era (2007). The mantra that television and consumer electronics executives have uttered of this era is that one can watch “whatever show you want, whenever you want, on whatever screen you want” (ibid.: 1). Lotz asserts that “by the end of the multi-channel transition [from the mid-1980s through the mid-2000s], there was no singular mode of viewing” (ibid.: 16). Joke Hermes also points out that “[t]here is no denying that television viewing is not what it used to be” (2014: 35). Jay Rosen refers to “[t]he people formerly known as the audience” (2006) to indicate that the position and behaviour of the ‘viewer’ have irreversibly changed and that media institutions will need to rethink their position. It simply makes no sense to talk about audiences anymore. One could say that the audience has emancipated through choice and have become users. I will refer to ‘users’, the term used for online environments, when I discuss what I think the new public service media task should be and how the relationship between public service and its ‘audience’ should be. I argue that the ‘former audience’ becomes users, since it choses what media to use actively with specific goals (Ha & McCann, 2008).

Johannes Bardoel and Gregory Ferrell Lowe argue that a demand-driven (or pull) public service media culture is needed (2007). The focus of public service media should shift towards its users. I would like to propose the use of the term ‘public service media’ as an update for public service broadcasting. The term public service media has been circulating for some time now among media researchers (e.g. Nissen, 2006; Leurdijk, 2007; Iosifidis, 2011; Donders, 2012; Helberger, 2015; and Vanhaegt & Donders, 2016). Some have chosen to refer to PSB 3.0, for example, when they are discussing the transformation of public service broadcasting and the current state of affairs (e.g. Jakubowicz, 2010; and Burri, 2015). In my opinion, the term PSB 3.0 still signals to an idea of one-way communication from the public service broadcasters towards its (passive) audience. Because it might be slightly confusing that I will be referring to both pubic service broadcasting and public service media throughout this research project, I want to indicate that when I use the term ‘broadcasting’ I

(11)

mostly reflect on its past and the term ‘media’ to signify in what I think it should develop in the future.

I have now indicated how I think public service broadcasters should respond to the changes within the media landscape. This change frightens program makers, as they perceive this power and presence of users as impacting on their autonomy. How this relationship would look and why content creators have to accept this new relationship, I will explain in chapter four and five. However, I also wonder – to narrow down to a title level – what these changes mean for a travel television program like 3 op Reis. This title is part of a bigger ‘brand’, namely BNNVARA. Even though the idea of BNNVARA as a brand is not widely circulating, the organisation is working towards positioning itself as a brand. I will discuss this further in chapter one. One might wonder what this idea of a brand is doing in a public service organisation like BNNVARA. I will try to explain in this research project why thinking in terms of a ‘brand’ fits with the idea of public service and what potentials and limitations it has. Other theorists have suggested terms like ‘(public service) media organisations’ (D’Arma & Steemers: 2010), ‘(public service) communicators’ (Bardoel & Lowe, 2007), or ‘(public service) practitioners’ (ibid.) as an updated replacement for the term public service broadcasters. According to Bardoel and Lowe, the development towards public service communicators will lead to a focus on forging a partnership with the audience, in which the audience are to become active agents (2007: 9). Although these are good suggestions, these terms do not seem to cover the whole set of practices of contemporary media. I have chosen to refer to public service media brands, because it is in my opinion a more overarching term for the public service media organisation and its practices and it shows were the public service media image should be heading towards. Natali Helberger (2015) and Alessandro D’Arma and Jeanette Steemers (2008) – though only once – also mentioned public service media brands.

The Dutch public service broadcaster BNNVARA states on their brand information page that it wants to have an impact everywhere and to anyone who is open to it (n.d.). The brand is active on TV, radio, and various digital platforms and exists out of two previously existing brands, namely BNN and VARA, which had to merge in January 2014 due to cutbacks from Dutch politics. At first, these brands remained their own identity when it came to, for example, their programs. On 24 August 2017, these individual brands merged into one public brand: BNNVARA. Because BNNVARA is working towards becoming a brand, 3

(12)

op Reis does not only have to rethink television as multiplatform television, but also itself as a cross-media title and with that also its own professional practices. At the same time, 3 op Reis is confronted with competition from commercial broadcasters as well as from amateurs. UGC (user generated content) has vastly improved over the last decades now that high quality technology has become cheap and easily accessible. The brand also deals with the fact that its board that is leaving and that there will be a far-reaching reorganisation in the near future (Takken and Pinedo, 2018). All in all, there is a lot of turmoil going on in the editorial and production offices. This means that 3 op Reis faces uncertainty about what they should do, how they define what they are doing, who they are, and even if they will continue to exist.

The new television or media landscape forms both a challenge and a threat for public service media. They have to find new tactics and strategies in order to adapt to multi-platform television, whilst continuing to fulfil their public service task. For a public organisation to engage in content marketing can be seen as a consequence of neoliberal governance. Apparently it is felt to be the best way of dealing with the changes in the public service media domain. Mascha Gerretsen and Irma Machielse (2018) discuss what content marketing is and paraphrase Joe Pulizzi (2016) to provide a definition for the phenomenon. They describe content marketing as a combined approach which is both marketing and a business process in which “valuable, relevant and consistent content” is created and distributed in order “to attract and acquire a clearly defined audience […] with the objective of driving profitable customer action” (2018: 19). They highlight that this is an integral approach in which not the sender, but the receiver is central. BNNVARA deals with the challenges and uncertainties offered by the current media landscape by thinking in terms of brands and titles instead of television programs. It develops integral content strategies on title level, which confirms that they are indeed engaged in content marketing. As stated in an annual report of 2017, BNNVARA argues that its brand is central and no longer the development of a primary television or radio program (2017). They want to continue the cross-medialisation of their editorial departments (ibid.). Their integral content strategy is made up of several a cross-media strategies. Through this approach, BNNVARA tries to remove the divide between radio, television, and online that exists within the organisation. 3 op Reis is an example of a television program which has converted into a title as part of the BNNVARA brand. By using god terms like ‘brand’ and ‘integral

(13)

content strategy’, BNNVARA is trying to navigate itself to a stable, secure future in which the brand itself has full control on the situation. This, however, is never entirely possible.

In short, ‘marketing thinking’ has entered the domain of public service media. As a result, a first issue to discuss is how the historically existing contrast between commercial and public service ‘broadcasters’ seems to disappear. It is noteworthy in the definition of content marketing that is always geared towards driving ‘profitable customer action’. Here public broadcasting is redefined from a citizenship-oriented service to a domain in which customers or consumers operate and have to be made to do things that will net the organisation a profit. While I prefer the term user, clearly the type of discourse used by BNNVARA indicates that they are caught between the older notion of the citizen they provided a service for in the earlier broadcast ideology, a critical vocabulary that understands viewers as uncritical and passive consumers, and the logic of the new digitalised online media environments in which consumers are also always users.

A historical perspective on public service broadcasting

Public service broadcasting historically has a mandate from the state which reads that it has to develop itself as national service in the public interest (Scannell, 1990: 13-14), for which it is supposed to have an educative role and to spark national or public debates. This gives ‘public service’ its’ often patronising and informing character. Commercial broadcasting is focused on giving the viewers what they want or what they seem to want, namely entertainment, in order to make profit. Due to this, content marketing is likely to be more suitable for commercial television. Dutch public service broadcasting is funded by the government and is not allowed to make profit. Because of this, content marketing and public service media seems like an odd combination. Content marketing even seems to endanger the position of public service media, because its right of existence lies in the fact that it is only supposed to be informative, educational, and patronising and, with the arrival of commercial broadcasters, should offer content different than that of entertaining, commercial broadcasters.

The whole idea of measuring success is also a quite commercial logic. The Dutch public broadcasting is supposed to represent society. Viewing ratings are used to ensure that they ‘reach’ a large and varied enough share of Dutch

(14)

society. I will discuss the Dutch broadcasting system and the reason why it is centred on ratings more elaborately in chapter one. Understanding that the Dutch public service broadcasting system is centred on ratings, however, leads to an interesting insight. Ien Ang (1991) explains that, even though public service broadcasters might think they might be something like a ‘pure broadcaster’, they are only basing their conclusions through an eyeball logic on the measurements of an ‘audience’ they do not entirely understand. The audience is simply perceived and accessed (ibid.: ix). Ang argues that the audience is not something to be controlled, but is instead an active social subject (ibid.). “It turns out that the audience so desperately sought does not exist, at least not in the unified and controllable mode in which it is generally envisioned” (ibid.: ix). The logic based on ratings and measurements shows that broadcasters are nevertheless ‘desperately seeking the audience’ as they create content and then transmit it to a cattle-likened audience to see if they ‘eat’ it. These ratings also help to sell the audience to advertisers who have something to sell in the commercial breaks. This shows that the commercial logic already exists within the public broadcasting system for a long time.

Some authorities argue that public service broadcasters should not provide entertainment, because it would not suit the public service task. However, entertainment and information were always included in this task, but then with a kind of popular social reform agenda. The ‘Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid’ (WRR) – the Scientific Council for Government Policy – argues in its report Focus op Functies [Focus on Functions] (2005) that entertainment does not belong in the realm of public service broadcasting, since commercial broadcasters amply supply this demand. A counter report disagrees with this and asserts that public values are also essential for entertainment, partly because entertainment plays an important social and cultural role as a source of signification and identity constitution for large sections of the population (Rutten, Leurdijk & Frissen, 2005). Paul Rutten, Andra Leurdijk, and Valerie Frissen argue that citizens hardly draw borders between serious information and popular culture, between ‘objective’ arguments of journalists and ‘subjective’ views of people in their own environment (ibid.: 15). This does not necessarily imply a decline in the public sphere, as soon would be assumed in the tradition of Habermas, nor does it imply that citizens are no longer socially involved or have no opinion about social or moral issues. On the contrary, it shows that, certainly on television, in addition to factual information,

(15)

other means are needed to interest people in current political and social developments, because both ratio and emotion play an important role in the processes of signification of people. For this reason, Rutten et al. claim that the WRR fails to appreciate the cultural and ritual significance of media in general and of entertainment, as mass media can bring about feelings of communality (ibid.: 15). I point this out because 3 op Reis combines entertainment and information.

The WRR goes on to argue that public service broadcasters should instead focus on certain ‘functions’ of media (2005). The counter report states that a reasoning about functions of media that is entirely based on a supply orientation and from there presupposes a social effect cannot but be at odds with social reality (2005). For example, taking the encoding and decoding model by Stuart Hall (1973)3_{and the observations of Rutten et al. (2005) in the back of my mind,} I want to point out that what a channel may intend to be information can be used as entertainment or as education. Besides, there are a lot of cross-overs formats, like infotainment and edu-drama. With regard to the informing task of public service broadcasting in relation to entertainment, this hybridisation only further implicates the critique and instructions of the Scientific Council for Government Policy. It indicates that the public service ethos has already slightly shifted into one that is more commercial, creating a skewed relationship between public service and commercial media. This relationship has always been skewed, since commercial broadcasters can easily imitate successful public service media titles, whereas public service media have to create content different from the content of commercial media. This makes it even the more strange that public service broadcasters are kept to ratings, because they have to keep coming up with something new in order to be different from commercial broadcasters while commercial broadcasters can endlessly milk out success. I want to conclude this paragraph by stating the obvious: even though a commercial logic has entered public service media, it can still serve identities and communities.

3 Stuart Hall’s encoding and decoding model looks at communication processes (1973). As Hall himself argues, the “communication between the production elites in broadcasting and their audiences is necessarily a form of 'systematically distorted communication'” (ibid.: 1). With this Hall means that messages might not be received as one would want to, because there are certain degrees of understanding and misunderstanding. The result of a communication process such as the transmission of content on television is not that the audience will understand it in the way it was intended, but instead the discourse that follows out of the decoding of the content.

(16)

Dealing with marketing thinking in the public service domain

Because there is no getting around the fact that ‘marketing thinking’, and with that a commercial logic, has entered the public service media domain, it remains the question how it can be dealt with productively and critically for a title like 3 op Reis. What should the public service ethos and task be now that public service media embraces this partly commercial logic and comes to understand and appreciate its ‘audience’ in a different manner? Especially as public service media, like all media organisations, needs to deal with the new incarnation of its former viewers who are now media users and often content producers, the question that is central in this research project is: How does the practical exercise of studying cross-media strategies for 3 op Reis help theoretical reflection on the transformation from a public service television program to a public service media title? With this question, my research project combines a professional practitioner’s point of view and a more academic theoretically informed point of view. Focussing on a single title will allow me to reflect on how the industry understands the way it must change as well as on what it means on a strategic level to willingly change into a title and brand. Moreover, it will help me understand on a theoretical level how television and public service broadcasting (and its task) should be defined in the future given that the future is an internet-based one. Rather than start with the television program, this research project will apply mixed methods to study the website of 3 op Reis, which includes a 3-part analysis. The analysis is based on the following sub-questions:

1. How do web and television content differ and why is this difference of importance?

2. What do the (possible) users of 3 op Reis think of the title and its website?

3. What can we learn from the textual and audience analysis that helps reflect on how broadcasters have envisioned their new role?

The first section of analysis, discussed in chapter three, looks at how the differences between web and television content are put forward. The theories and method with which I will analyse and compare the aforementioned content will be discussed in the beginning of this chapter. Since I am also looking at what (possible) users think of 3 op Reis, I implement their more general feedback on what they think of the website and the television program in this part as well, in order to structure the analysis.

(17)

Chapter four deals with the second sub-question. It discusses the wishes, fantasies, motives, values and customs of (possible) 3 op Reis users – whom I argue to have relevant profiles as (possible) 3 op Reis users and travellers and as television and media users – which were gathered through in-depth interviews. I also try to understand how non-fiction audio-visual content, either online or linear, becomes embedded in the daily lives of these media users. Through these two levels of audience or user analysis, I will be able to advice 3 op Reis on a more practical level and, on a theoretical level, to understand how media and media content is embedded in everyday life. To gain these insights, I build on the theory on ‘interpretative repertoires’ of Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell (1988). They see repertoires “as the building blocks speakers use for constructing versions of actions, cognitive processes and other phenomena” (ibid.: 172). Through the forthcoming repertoires, I will be able to map the underlying cultural knowledge of the respondents. Even though the respondents are not representable for the entire group of 3 op Reis users, their logic of reasoning can be appointed for the (possible) users of the title through these repertoires. Since public service is, after all, about serving citizens – and, in the case of 3 op Reis, about entertaining and informing –, this collected information will be relevant.

In the third part of analysis, which is dealt with in chapter 5, I look at the insights the other two parts of analysis offer for the website and reflect on how BNNVARA can implement cross-media strategies for 3 op Reis. In other words, by comparing the 3 op Reis website and television programme, and looking at what (possible) users think, I will have a starting point to envision in what way a public service task could be formulated to suit this day and age. In addition, I am interested in finding out whether and how the 3 op Reis website can be improved to perform effectively as a part of a cross-media strategy. For the use of the mixed methods discussed above, I will be drawing on my background in cultural studies. Before I discuss the empirical work done for this thesis, I will provide some theoretical background for this thesis. The changing media landscape discussed in the introduction will be discussed more fully in chapter one and the history of travel storytelling in chapter two.

(18)

Chapter 1. Towards a transition from broadcast

television to platform television

In this chapter, I will lay out a short history of broadcasting television and look at the changes ‘broadcasters’ are facing today. By outlining these changes, I argue that the way broadcasters are still thinking about television and its audience has to change. Not only do I argue that public service broadcasters have to see television as multiplatform television and that they have to become public service media, but also that their mentality has to change from simply transmitting content (based on what they think is good for audiences, a paternalist attitude) to how they can be meaningful for their users and interact with them to know what is important to them.

As I have argued in the introduction, the changing media landscape asks for a new definition of what we used to call broadcasting, especially for public service broadcasting. Before the arrival of the internet, the development of content was in control of organisations (Gerretsen & Machielse, 2018: 12). That is not the case anymore. Karen Donders (2012) also discusses the changes that public service broadcasters have faced over the years and are still facing nowadays. She argues that since the 1920s, when public service broadcasting was solely radio, broadcasting has gone through multiple transitions. It has been through a monopoly phase (ranging from the 1920s to the 1970s), a liberalization phase (mid-1970s to mid-1990s), and a phase with a new media environment (ranging from the late 1990s and onwards). Other scholars have acknowledged these phases (e.g. Collins, Finn, McFayden and Hoskins, 2001; Steemers, 2003 and 2007; Murdock, 2004; Leurdijk, 2007; and Bardoel and d’Haenens, 2008). In the wake of digitalisation, traditional media like television have undergone significant change in this last phase, but remain important to this day. Nevertheless, the changes in the media landscape have led to a crisis in public service broadcasting. I have already incited, but not fully formed this argument in chapter one. The crisis is the result of a double self-definition. On the one hand, public service broadcasters currently have a substantive political-cultural task and, on the other hand, they still think (and are forced to think so by the Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (NPO) [Dutch public broadcasting organization]) in terms of reach and quantitative ratings. This paradox has been existing since the introduction of commercial television in the Netherlands. Some theorists, amongst which Ang (1991), argue that this crisis already existed

(19)

even way before. I will explain how the Dutch broadcasting system works and why it is centred on ratings later in this chapter.

But first I return to the last phase or era of broadcasting mentioned by Donders (2012), which is characterised by a multiplicity of media. Many theorists have attempted to define this ‘new era’ in broadcasting. Amongst the suggested definitions are a multi-platform era (Debrett, 2009; and Johnson, 2009), a matrix era (Curtin, 2009; and Jenner, 2016: 260), a post-broadcast era (Tay & Turner, 2009), and a post-network era (Lotz, 2007). Jenner (2016) refers to different periods in broadcasting history and argues that television is facing the shift from TVIII to TVIV. Whereas some speak of (the process of) convergence (Bardoel & Van Cuilenberg, 2003; Nissen, 2006; and Dawson, 2007), Sarah Cardwell (2006) mentions ‘second-shift media’. There are many definitions in circulation, which is undoubtedly due to the fact that the current changes have not yet fully crystallised. These changes create confusion when it comes to the roles of former television makers, the former audience, and public service broadcasters. Because of this, no one seems to be able to truly define this era and what (public service) ‘broadcasting’ has become.

Gunn Sara Enli argues that “every decade seems to demand a reorientation of public service broadcasting (PSB) in order for the institutions to survive technological, societal and market changes” (2008: 105). Even though no one is able yet to define this new era, a reorientation of public service broadcasting is still demanded. Theorists have proposed strategies and approaches that might be put in practice in this ‘new era’ of broadcasting. Gillian Doyle (2010), for example, refers to a multi-platform approach as well as a multi-platform strategy. Enli (2008) discusses multi-platform formats. Anja Bechmann (2012), on the one hand, mostly gives preference to the term cross-platform strategies where both Mary Debrett (2009)4_{and James Bennett (2008),} on the other hand, talk about a 360-degree commissioning strategy. In an article co-written by Niki Strange, Bennett also speaks of second-shift strategies (2008). In contrary, Michael Curtin (2009) refers to an intermedia strategy and to older strategies which were popular amongst networks during the 1990s, like multi-platforming, repurposing, and cross-promoting (ibid.: 15). Numerous other

4 According to Debrett, the importance of this 360 degree commissioning is serving the public service broadcasting goal of universality through cross-platform productions (2009: 810). In doing so, viewers must be alerted and directed to new media platforms. A 360 degree commissioning strategy is very similar to cross-media strategies. As such, many of the terms suggested refer to the same idea, namely that the distinction between radio, television and online should be removed.

(20)

strategies could be added to this list. In the introduction of this research project I have already referred to the way BNNVARA deals with the changes within the media landscape and the strategy the brand has chosen to implement. By taking BNNVARA as an example, I have shown that content marketing and branding has entered the realm of public service media. According to Hoynes, branding already existed outside the world of television for a long time and entered the realm of public service broadcasting mid-1990s (2003).

Public service with a commercial character

What is public service media losing by thinking in terms of brands and content marketing? One could argue that traditional public values are lost and that ‘public service’ is given a more commercial character. However, the question to what extend this can be seen as something bad remains. The before mentioned strategies suggest a redefinition or reinvention of broadcasting as a way of dealing with the changes in the media landscape. But how should we redefine broadcasting? And, more importantly, how do we re-invent television as cross-media audio-visual content in this era? New definitions of television and broadcasting have discursive relevance. In their own ways, they are all making claims about what the future of television and broadcasting in the media landscape will look like. By doing this, theory is used to dampen the confusion that exists in the media field and to un-mess the mess which is the media landscape by making their strategies and definitions sound more logical than that of others. By making the assumptions and arguments that I am making, I am doing the same thing. I suggest, like many before me, that television should be seen as multi-platformed (e.g. Bennett & Strange, 2008; Debrett, 2009; Curtin, 2009; Johnson, 2009; Doyle, 2010; Enli, 2008; and Jenner, 2016). Multi-platform television can be described as a mode of storytelling that is dispersed across multiple outlets (Doyle, 2010). I argue that the discursive effect of seeing television as multi-platform television is the claim that cross-media storytelling illustrates the importance of a redefinition of public service broadcasting and public service media. It can strengthen the ‘endangered’ position of public service media. I hope to raise awareness for the need of a redefinition of television and public service broadcasting, and with that a redefinition of its task, through which ‘broadcasters’ can be in control of these changes. I argue that this control is needed for public service media to justify their own existence in the future. It is gained by taking advantage of the cross-media character of

(21)

media, as it can extend the public service of public service media beyond simply ‘broadcasting’. José van Dijck and Thomas Poell (2015) also underline the importance of taking advantage of the possibilities that the internet offers public service:

“One line of argument proposes to change “public service broadcasting” (PSB) into “public service media” (PSM), underscoring the importance of extending public services beyond radio and television to encompass the full specter of the Internet” (158).

They assert that the internet invites public service broadcasters to broaden their scope beyond content production and distribution and that it can be employed to involve and activate citizens and realise core public service values at the same time (ibid.: 158-159). Bardoel and Lowe explain that public service broadcasting – which has for centuries been seen as a way to transmit television programs that should inform and educate its mostly passive audience through one-way communication – should evolve to a proper communication mode (2007). They argue that this development is crucial, because today’s media-society relations are more about interaction than information. I suggest that this should be the evolution to public service media.

Public service broadcasters currently follow a paternalistic logic and try to educate and inform citizens. They do not treat citizens differently, even though television viewing behaviour has changed and audience have emancipated. Even with the developments – e.g. the migration towards other platforms and the rapid growth of the internet’s popularity – within the media landscape this logic still persists. Every broadcaster, and brand in general, does try to respond to the developments. As a result, websites, apps, and social media accounts for these brands are popping up like mushrooms. It seems that the reasoning behind this is that if a brand or title fails to adapt to the new media environment, it ceases to exist. It is not hard to imagine that these new platforms on which brands must be present have further intensified the competition between commercial and public service media brands. Hall looks at the applied strategies in marketing in this era of neoliberal capitalism and asserts that:

“There is an exponential rise in the marketing of ‘technological desire’. The mobile phone, fast broadband connection and a Facebook entry are now

(22)

‘necessities of life’, even in places where millions do not have them or actually know what they do” (2011: 722).

Users are getting used to the have these ‘necessities of life’ at their disposal through which their ‘technological desire’ is sustained. Hye Jin Lee and Mark Andrejevic argue from a marketing standpoint stat fulfilling this technological desire also yields something valuable for a brand, since “the promise of interactivity is about closing the circle of monitored consumption: linking TV content to ad exposure and consumption behaviour” (2013: 44). In addition, Jessica Clark and Patricia Aufderheide argue that ‘being there’ on other platforms leads to a different relationship between public service media and its users (2009). In this relationship, the communication between public service media brands to its users is not transmitted or structured as in the linear model of mass-communication, but instead there is two-way or even circular communication between the user and the public service media brand in which there is direct participation from the user. Here too, a paradox becomes visible in which public service is trying to determine its own rights to exist by begging their users to acknowledge public service as an authority (through the provision of these ‘necessities of life’, for example).

Johannes Bardoel and Leen D’Haenens explain that at the moment public service broadcasters “stick to the classic division between information and entertainment, the focus on traditional tasks and formats geared towards so-called citizens rather than consumers” (2008: 356). For that reason they lag behind in producing hybrid programmes in comparison to commercial broadcasters. Through the word ‘so-called’, Bardoel and D’Haenens indicate that they do not think in terms of traditional, national citizenship. They assert that “it is important that public broadcasters rethink their policies in relation to both these technological and social and sociological transformations” (ibid.: 356). Precisely because public service is ‘public service’ it is difficult to redefine its task into one that is more suited for an interactive, digitalised media landscape in which television simply has become an audio-visual way of presenting content.5_{This audio-visual content can also be presented in other} digital audio-visual environments at a non-regular basis or a different regular

5 The Raad van Cultuur [Dutch Council for Culture] is redefining the public service broadcasting’ task anyway. In their advice, they write that public service broadcasting should indeed become creative public media organisations or networks. This shows that there are players within the Dutch media industry that do understand the significance of adapting to the changes within the media field.

(23)

basis. The great risk of this for the makers of 3 op Reis remains that the individuality of the title might get lost. Because of this, it is important for the title to research how the title can be meaningful for its users and why and how the users want to interact with the title in any of its guises on various platforms. I will look at the title through the eyes of users in chapter 3 and 4 to see how 3 op Reis can maintain its televisual power.

To further expand on the discussion of competition between commercial and public service media brands, it is important to note that television is simultaneously very national and international (Kuipers, 2011). The transnational field of television is the result of the trade in television programs (ibid.: 544).6_{That means that public service broadcasting are not only facing} competition within their own nation, but also on an international level. Giselinde Kuipers has analysed the position of Dutch commercial and public service ‘television’ within the global cultural field of television (2011; 2012). According to her, “the transnational television field emerged primarily as a result of the trade in television programs” (2011: 544). She argues that in the ‘global market’ of television it has often been cheaper for small countries to import content instead of producing it themselves (ibid.). “National broadcasters imported programs, formats, and practices and thus standards, genres, styles and tastes” (ibid.: 542) out of economic necessity. Before the rise of the Internet, DVDs and so on, the production and diffusion of content was mostly marked by the boundaries of the nation-state (ibid.: 541-542). In the case of the Dutch broadcasting system, this has resulted in a big difference between the public service and the commercial system, since the public service system mainly focuses on the national television field and slightly on European television fields whereas commercial networks are strongly immersed into a transnational (Hollywood-dominated) television field (ibid.: 547).

The Dutch public broadcasting system in context

Now that I have discussed the changes in the television and broadcasting landscape, I want to clarify what the Dutch public broadcasting system looks like before I set out to redefine its task. Because the public service media system

6 The idea of transnational markets comes forward in theory on the field of cultural production. There are multiple global cultural fields, such as television, film, or television (Kuipers, 2011:543). These global cultural fields are best understood as “polycentric systems with multiple competing centers” (ibid.: 543). Hence, in the television field, for example, there are multiple production centres, “each catering to specific national or transnational audiences” (ibid.: 543).

(24)

in the Netherlands is fairly complex, an organogram has been attached (see attachment 1) which shows the subdivision of organisations under the NPO. This organogram only shows the public service broadcasters that fall under the NPO. The NPO is regulated by the Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap [Ministry of Education, Culture and Science] and checked by the Commissariat for the Media. There are differences between the public service media brands that fall under the NPO. Some are broadcasting associations, other are task organisations. Then there are the smaller organisations, which are referred to as aspiring broadcasters. The NPO receives its budget out of taxes and through advertising revenue from its radio and television channels. This budget is then divided – based on for example size, members, and radio and television airtime – amongst the brands that are part of the public serviced media system.7_There are not only public service broadcasters in the Netherlands. In 1989, commercial television made its introduction in the Netherlands (Kuipers, 2011: p.545). Alongside three public service broadcasting channels on which airtime is divided over the different public broadcasting associations, there are multiple channels which belong to commercial broadcasting companies, of which two are part of larger European conglomerates. Due to the heightened competition with the advent of commercial channels, public service media are constantly struggling to reach as many people as possible – because of their rating targets – and at the same time serving a certain ‘target audience’ and representing society. Ever since the arrival of commercial television there has been debate on the right of existence of public service media. Here I only want to indicate that I am aware of this debate about the functions and tasks of commercial and public service broadcasters.

The public service broadcasting system is currently still centred on representing certain ‘pillars’ of society and has a paternalistic logic (Nissen, 2006). The success of titles is determined by quantitative program ratings in which the ‘audience’ is usually defined as a ‘target’. These ratings are measured, since the NPO, which administers the different public service broadcasters in the Netherlands, sets certain targets. The NPO is very much stuck in the ratings set, which could be described as a commercial mind-set. The organization defines the budget, continuation, and longevity of titles such as 3 op Reis through these ratings. Yet these ratings say very little about

7 For each title, the public service media brands get a budget from the NPO. The online budget is discussed later in the creation process. It often even remains the question whether there is a budget for online content. This shows that not only the BNNVARA, but also the NPO should reconsider why there are different budgets for on title..

(25)

the extent to which people actually use content, how they value content, and how content can be meaningful for them. Assessing success of titles in terms of ratings is an outdated way of thinking. I invite public service media to think again about the reasons why they make content, namely to ‘serve’ the citizens. Even the Raad van Cultuur [Dutch Council for Culture] suggests that a change in thinking about public service ‘broadcasting’ is needed (2014). They argue that these organisations should transition from a broadcaster that focuses on radio and television into a public media service that programs on all platforms and cooperates with commercial parties and creators. The new public service task should then be translated into strong media-content, which in turn should be offered on the right places, screens, platforms, and so on in order to be meaningful for users in as many ways as possible.

Public ‘service’ in a neoliberal era

Having discussed how the Dutch broadcasting system works, I want to point out yet again why public service media should ‘serve’ its citizens in a different way. To do so, it is important to note that the last phase in broadcasting described by Donders (2012) originated during the era of neoliberal capitalism. The Dutch government operates according to a neoliberal governance model in which public service broadcasters must continuously reflect on the success, effect, and impact of their titles. The transition – which I already have discussed in the introduction – from the old broadcasting principles to modern ideas of market and brands in which creators will listen to the wishes of its users accompanies the shift that Simon Dawes (2014) identifies in his theory on neoliberal capitalism. As Dawes explains, “neoliberalism involves the changing governmental relation between state and market, and the modification of the differences between citizens and consumers in civil society” (ibid.: 703). Dawes argues that there should be a recognition of the shift from citizenship to consumption with broadcasting regulation (ibid.: 708). The suggestion of neoliberalism is that everything is a market in which everything can be commodified. I argue that this should not be the line of thought for broadcasters to follow, but that they do have to understand that society is changing. Contemporary society needs to be characterized by the undermining of citizenship (e.g. accepting public duties and ethics of citizenship) by consumption (in other words, private pleasures) (ibid.: 708). Rutten, Leurdijk and Frissen (2005) argue that citizens hardly draw borders between serious

(26)

information and popular culture. Broadcasters and the Dutch government have to accept that other means, in addition to factual information, are needed to draw citizens’ attention for current social and political developments which focus more on these private pleasures pointed out by Dawes. Rutten, Leurdijk, and Frissen note that mass media can bring about feelings of community through a private pleasure like entertainment (ibid.: 15). Even though a commercial logic has entered public service media, it can still serve identities and community. But how? And how does this change the role of “[t]he people formerly known as the audience” (Rosen, 2006)? To make room for the public task in this neoliberal framework, I argue that broadcasters should not see the former audience as consumers and commodities, even though the rating system almost turns citizens into commodities by demanding a certain achieved quantity of ‘viewers’. The former audience should not be reduced to individual, not with each other connected consumers, but should be seen as citizens that have become users which they should serve and form a connection with.

To further understand how public service media can serve citizens and what remains of the public service task in this neoliberal era, I will look at the theory of Joke Hermes on popular culture in relation to cultural citizenship (2005). According to Hermes, people feel allegiance or belonging to popular culture – and its texts, such as television programs – rather than to national or local governance (ibid.: 1). New types of collectivities are formed through popular culture that stretch beyond national borders and the nation is facing competition from, for instance, conglomerates that invite these collectivities to “produce small self-enclosed enclaves within nations” (ibid.: 1). Because of this, Hermes argues that popular culture has a democratic potential “even though it lacks formal structures of guaranteeing right or enforcing duties and obligations” (ibid.: 4). I argue for this same reason that public service media should move towards understanding its “users” or – to take on the term she uses – “readers” in terms of cultural citizenship instead of national or local citizenship. Moving towards understanding users in terms of cultural citizenship means that, in the case of the Dutch broadcasting system, the public service media’s is no longer fulfilled if it only has correctly reflected Dutch society and should also no longer be rated only in terms of quantitative ratings. Public service media can still serve citizenship, but in another way. What, then, does this cultural citizenship Hermes speaks of comprehend? She describes it as the following:

(27)

“cultural citizenship can be defined as the process of bonding and community building, and reflection on that bonding, that is implied in partaking of the text-related practices of reading, consuming, celebrating, and criticizing offered in the realm of (popular) culture” (ibid.: 10).

Now that I have pointed out that the realm of popular culture can spark cultural citizenship, the question ‘how’ remains. Hermes identifies three “citizenship qualities of popular culture” (ibid.: 3). The first quality is that it makes citizens feel welcome and offers a feeling of belonging encompass. The second quality is that it fascinates. We are fascinated by popular cultural texts, such as television programs, “because they allow us to fantasize about the ideals and hopes that we have for society, as well as to ponder what we fear” (ibid.: 3). The third is that popular culture “links the domains of the public and the private and blurs their borderline more than any other institution or practice, for more people – regardless of their age, gender, or ethnicity” (ibid.: 3).

Looking at the uncertainties in the media landscape, it is not strange that a title like 3 op Reis has not yet figured out what exactly it has to do in this new era, how it has to define what it does, and what it is. The confusion of 3 op Reis does not lie with its makers, but is part of a much bigger problem that has to do with the right of existence and uncertainties around public service media. Nevertheless, that does not mean that 3 op Reis should not do anything. It is in this area that theorists can be meaningful for a title like 3 op Reis by creating clarity in this confusion. That is also why I will look at how a title like 3 op Reis can find its way under uncertain circumstances. At first, BNNVARA would have to agree on promoting themselves as public service media instead of broadcasting. Because of that 3 op Reis would have to accept that they are a title that is present on multiple media instead of a television program that is transmitted. Since BNNVARA merged out of BNN and VARA only about a year ago, it is likely that the brand still is figuring out how to position themselves as a brand whilst also remaining loyal to their former user groups. Next to that, BNNVARA has to remain faithful to the PSB remit and has to follow the guidelines provided by the NPO. That is why I am not looking into a cross-media strategy for the entire brand, but for the title 3 op Reis that already exists in its current format for multiple years. This means that I am not only focusing on what this changing media landscape looks like for a public service media in the Netherlands, but also what this means on title level. This allows me to reflect on

(28)

how the industry will have to come to understand the ‘future of television’ and how public service media will have to adapt.

To summarize this chapter, the television landscape has changed in such an irreversible way that it no longer makes sense to treat television like we did ten, twenty, or fifty years ago. A lot of (public) broadcasters are not recognizing this necessity and stick to their old state of affairs within the broadcasting industry. To illustrate this necessity for a title such as 3 op Reis, I will discuss how travel storytelling has changed over the last two centuries as an example in the next chapter. What is the power of travel storytelling and how do the affordances of various media enable different forms of storytelling? Through this discussion, I will be able to show how the changing media landscape affects how storytelling changes and how institutions or brands that are also capable of change are the ones that will subsist.

(29)

Chapter 2. A short history of travel storytelling

across different media

“In picturing the world that does exist, early travel films created a world that does not exist: an idealized geography that functioned as a parallel universe on the cinema screen” (Peterson, 2013: 3).

Early travel films such as the travelogue made a world or dream destination available to those who otherwise could not afford to travel there. Before these travel films and travel shows people were taken to picturesque places through what Mike Robinson, a theorist on travel writing, has defined as ‘narratives of being elsewhere’ (2008). Even though travel storytelling can be traced back to the times of antiquity and there are shared conventions between creators and users, travel storytelling does not form a genre on its own. Nevertheless, because travel storytelling has a long tradition, there is no need to worry about its extinction. As Judith Adler explains, “[t]ravel has been written about and consciously practiced as an art for almost five centuries” (1989: 1367). Towards the end of the 19th_{century, when the logic of mass production had reached every} level of daily life, travelling had found its way into every popular form of representation available at that time (Peterson, 2013: 26). Amongst these forms of representation were the travel lecture, the travelogue, and tourism guidebooks8_{, such as the picturesque French Guide Bleu. Nowadays, the} technological affordances of new media make it easier for not only professionals, but also for ‘citizens’ to create and spread travel stories. I will focus on the history of travel storytelling in this chapter, especially on non-fiction forms of travel storytelling – whether it is oral culture, print, television, or film – such as 3 op Reis , to expose the power of this form of storytelling and to show how the affordances of new media add something to it. I will also indicate that these affordances lead to a double logic. On the one hand, they lead to ‘improvements’ in travel storytelling. On the other hands, they create a tension between professionals and amateurs or citizens. This also applies to the relationship between public service media and its users.

Travelogues were written records of the experiences of a travelling author (Barber, 1993). Jennifer Peterson connects the history of these travelogues and the travel lecture to the travelogue film, which came into being with the

8 Sara María de Lourdes Rodríguez Ortiz asserts that travel guidebooks have become highly popular in Europe after the introduction of guide like the Guide Bleu (2011: 54). Accordingly, they have become an additional symbol of European tourist culture.

(30)

invention of the motion picture (2013). Travel films, ethnographic films and cinematic travelogues poached from pre-existing forms. The illustrated travel lecture, for example, was widely popular in the late 19th_{and early 20}th_century (ibid. 23). Because this travel story was illustrated, the term is “directly connected to the visual medium of photography and associated with public exhibition contexts” (ibid.: 23). Peterson argues that this illustrated lecture is the travelogue film’s most immediate predecessor and that the travelogue bears closest resemblance to this entertainment form (ibid.: 24). Because the travelogue poached from pre-existing media, Peterson argues that they remediated older technologies such as the photograph and the stereograph by the use of images and, as I have already indicated, the travel lecture and travel literature for its content and structure (ibid.: 5-26). With the rise of cinema at the beginning of the 20th_{century, the element of movement was added to the} already existing representations of travel (ibid.: 29). Early 20th_{century was} characterised “by an unprecedented level of movement, not only of goods but also of people. In the visual culture of travel that emerged out of this climate, a popular taste for foreign views emerged” (ibid.: 21). As such, the travelogue became a multi-media form through which places became consumable, marking a new kind of visual imperialism (ibid.: 21). Peterson asserts that this sense of consumption is crucial, since it explains how new forms of mass reproduction, such as the travelogue, created a sense that places were commodities (ibid.: 22). It is also in this that the commercial character of travel storytelling lies, namely by ‘selling places’. Sharing travel stories and experiences, which might be told from a public logic, also became a way of producing attractive stories in exchange for payment or as a form of marketing. Films are also made to draw revenue from a story, through tickets sales and advertising sales. But this commodification of places was not a new phenomenon, as the pedlars, lecturers, and guidebook writers of previous centuries, for example, also told travel stories.

The aesthetics that are typical for forms of early travelogues generally relate to the specific formal and stylistic conventions for film around 1907 (ibid.: 2). Gunning refers the early cinema period, which he ranges from 1895 to 1906-1909, as the cinema of attractions (2006). In this period, narrative was virtually non-existent until 1906, since the available technology at that time only allowed for extremely short films (Beeton, 2015: 40). Filmmakers focussed on showing something ‘new’ and “invoking a sense of wonder and awe” (ibid.: 28-39). Apart